• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mr. Lehrer - How about a new idea in the coming debate?

WhyNotWhyNot

Active member
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
483
Reaction score
168
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Following the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known as the stimulus bill and also following passage of the Affordable Care Act, reporters asked congressmen / congresswomen, “Did you know the bill included ….?” Often the response was “Really???” Both these bills were monstrous – 1000 to 2000 pages each!!! And, both were extensively revised the nights before the votes as individual votes were bargained. “Transparency in Government”, “No More Earmarks”, “We Want Clean Bills – Ones that We Can Vote Up or Down” ….. These are party independent mantras of recent political campaigns and congressional debates. Every candidate wants to gore the mythical bad guys who use the government for the benefit of single individuals, interest groups, corporations, municipalities, and states. “Vote for me I ride a white charger” they extol with fervor. There is no transparency in bills that have thousands of pages. Thousands of pages equal dense camouflage foliage. Late night revisions just before a vote equal a cloak of darkness. We need a limit on the length of a bill. Momentous bills like the Social Security Act were only a few pages long. No bill should be more than 50 pages long. No vote should occur until at least 72 hours have passed since the last amendment was adopted / last edit made and it was published on the internet for easy public viewing. Our forefathers designed a government structure that required 3 signatures on every bill – the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President. The President can unilaterally enact these rules by simply making a public announcement that he/she will veto any bill that is more than 50 pages long or any bill that was not published in final form at least 72 hours before adoption in either the House or the Senate.
Does either candidate have the guts to commit to this stand on the campaign stump? I dare Jim Lehrer to put this challenge out in the debate!
 
Obama committed to transparency in his last campaign. He broke his promises about CSpan cameras and posting bills on the internet for 72 hours before signing them. The press never pushed him on it and his supporters are fine with the lies. So why bother asking for another pledge? It means nothing.
 
That national ID law that would have cost states billions was snuck into a defense spending bill. A Congressional staffer snuck in a dog park to be built on property owned by a man who wouldn't let him walk his dog there. Obamacare had that stupid 1099 provision that had to be repealed because even the IRS did not want it. People don't read these things before they vote on them and not that many write the things they introduce.
 
Obama committed to transparency in his last campaign. He broke his promises about CSpan cameras and posting bills on the internet for 72 hours before signing them. The press never pushed him on it and his supporters are fine with the lies. So why bother asking for another pledge? It means nothing.

This is true, he did break his promise that's for sure. He did explain it when he took questions from the house durring the dinner with them, which was basically a "my bad...stuff happened..." excuse.

You're definitely right, we don't need any more pledges, generally they aren't upheld and if they are, it's done simply for political gain and no regard for reality (see the Norquist no tax increase pledge).

What we really need is a new set of politicians who aren't life long politicians. We need honesty back in politics.
 
There is a big difference between a pablum, God and motherhood campaign promise to seek transparency in legislation and a specific very pointed question that demands a yes / no answer made to a direct question in a Presidential debate before the nation. Demand this and build enough buzz to get Lehrer to do it.
 
Instead of the current format, I would rather each candidate be submitted the same set of questions and to have each of them answer each question completely. Some questions can be about their philosophy of government and leadership and others can be technical details. President's have to make a decision on whether to sign legislation or not and there can always be a few items that they disagree with. Let's give them an opportunity.

Then have a discussion about their answers and allow them to explain on their feet. Sound bits, zingers and gotchas appeal to the extremes but it makes it hard for thoughtful people to watch. I hate that politics have become sport for non-athletes.
 
This idea was taken from a collection of essays called The Wind of Hope. A reviewer wrote, "Very interesting look at the current state of politics, our culture, and our society. It is a short, easy read that challenges our modern, hyper-media, views." You might want to read its preview on Amazon if you are interested in "athletic" politics.
 
Following the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known as the stimulus bill and also following passage of the Affordable Care Act, reporters asked congressmen / congresswomen, “Did you know the bill included ….?” Often the response was “Really???” Both these bills were monstrous – 1000 to 2000 pages each!!! And, both were extensively revised the nights before the votes as individual votes were bargained. “Transparency in Government”, “No More Earmarks”, “We Want Clean Bills – Ones that We Can Vote Up or Down” ….. These are party independent mantras of recent political campaigns and congressional debates. Every candidate wants to gore the mythical bad guys who use the government for the benefit of single individuals, interest groups, corporations, municipalities, and states. “Vote for me I ride a white charger” they extol with fervor. There is no transparency in bills that have thousands of pages. Thousands of pages equal dense camouflage foliage. Late night revisions just before a vote equal a cloak of darkness. We need a limit on the length of a bill. Momentous bills like the Social Security Act were only a few pages long. No bill should be more than 50 pages long. No vote should occur until at least 72 hours have passed since the last amendment was adopted / last edit made and it was published on the internet for easy public viewing. Our forefathers designed a government structure that required 3 signatures on every bill – the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President. The President can unilaterally enact these rules by simply making a public announcement that he/she will veto any bill that is more than 50 pages long or any bill that was not published in final form at least 72 hours before adoption in either the House or the Senate.
Does either candidate have the guts to commit to this stand on the campaign stump? I dare Jim Lehrer to put this challenge out in the debate!

When the only questions asked are open-ended, meaning they don't require a yes/no answer, it leaves the field wide open for whatever message the candidate wants to get out there. And, basically, that's what we hear. When the League of Women Voters backed away from the debates, they became little more than stump speeches.
 
Back
Top Bottom